RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

You are here: Home / Archives for group

group

WSJ Editorial Board: Head Still Buried in the Sand

by

While the rest of the world has basically accepted the conclusion of the latest IPCC report, one small village still holds out against the tide – the Wall Street Journal editorial board. This contrasts sharply with the news section of the paper which is actually pretty good. They had a front-page piece on business responses to global warming issues which not only pointed out that business was taking an interest in carbon reduction, but the article more or less took as a given that the problem was real. However, as we have pointed out before, the editorial pages operate in a universe all their own.

This would not be of much concern if the WSJ wasn’t such an influential paper in the US. However, the extent of its isolation on this issue is evident from the amusing reliance on the error-prone Christopher Monckton. They quote him saying that the sea level rise predictions were much smaller than in IPCC TAR (no they weren’t), that the human contribution to recent changes has been ‘cut by a third’ (no it hasn’t), and that the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) was written by politicians (no it wasn’t – the clue is in the name).

Even more wrong is the claim that “the upcoming report is also missing any reference to the infamous ‘hockey stick’ “. Not only are the three original “hockey stick” reconstructions from the IPCC (2001) report shown in the (draft) paleoclimate chapter of the new report, but they are now joined by 9 others. Which is why the SPM comes to the even stronger conclusion that recent large-scale warmth is likely to be anomalous in the context of at least the past 1300 years, and not just the past 1000 years.

Thus on any index of wrongness, this WSJ editorial scores pretty high. What puzzles us is why their readership, who presumably want to know about issues that might affect their bottom line, tolerate this rather feeble denialism. While we enjoy pointing out their obvious absurdities, their readers would probably be better off if the WSJ accepted Jeffery Sachs’ challenge. For if they can’t be trusted to get even the basic checkable facts right on this issue, why should any of their opinions be taken seriously?

Enquanto o resto do mundo tem aceitado a conclusão do último relatório do IPCC, uma pequena cidade ainda permanece contra a maré – o corpo editorial do Wall Street Journal. Isso contrasta nitidamente com a seção de notícias do jornal que é muito boa. Eles publicaram uma matéria sobre as respostas dos mercados para as questões de aquecimento global que não apenas apontava que os mercados estão cada vez mais interessados na redução de carbono, mas o artigo de certo modo tomava como certo que o problema é real. No entanto, como já apontamos anteriormente, as páginas do editorial operam em um universo próprio.

Isso não seria muito preocupante se o WSJ não fosse um jornal influente nos Estados Unidos. Contudo, a extensão de seu isolamento sobre essas questões é evidente pela divertida confiança que tem o propenso Christopher Monckton. Eles o citam dizendo que as previsões de aumento do nível do mar foram muito menores que aquelas do IPCC TAR (não eram), que a contribuição humana para as recentes mudanças foram ‘cortadas em um terço’ (não foram), e que o Sumário para Tomadores de Decisão (SPM) foi escrito por políticos (não foi, a dica está no seu próprio nome).

Ainda mais errado é a declaração de que “no futuro relatório falta qualquer referência à famosa curva ‘taco de róquei’. Não somente as três reconstruções originais dos ‘tacos de róquei’ do relatório IPCC (2001) são mostrados no capítulo (rascunho) de paleoclima do novo relatório, mas estas são agora fundidas com mais outras nove reconstruções. Essa é a razão para que o SPM venha com uma conclusão ainda mais contundente de que o recente aquecimento de larga escala é provavelmente anômalo no contexto de no mínimo 1300 anos atrás, e não somente nos últimos 1000 anos.

Assim, em qualquer índice de erro, este editorial do WSJ pontua muito alto. O que nos deixa intrigados é porque seus leitores, os quais presumidamente querem saber sobre as questões que podem afetar suas próprias bases, toleram um negacionismo tão fraco. Enquanto nos deleitamos em apontar seus óbvios absurdos, seus leitores deveriam provavelmente estar melhor servidos se o WSJ aceitasse o desafio de Jeffery Sachs. Se eles não podem ser confiáveis mesmo nos fatos mais básicos sobre essa questão, qual a razão para se acreditar seriamente em quaisquer de suas outras opiniões?

Por Ivan Bergier Tavares de Lima e Fernando Manuel Ramos

Fraser Institute fires off a damp squib

by

New addition: Download an annotated pdf of the Fraser report. An interactive pdf file, to be read on the screen, is here, and a printable version is here. Suggestions for further commenting are welcome. Additions to the pdf have to be short, and tied to particular pieces of text or figures. And of course we will only incorporate comments that we deem to be scientifically sound and cogent.

*****************

While most of the world’s climate scientists were following the IPCC fest last week, a few contrarians left out in the cold were trying to to organize their own party.

An unofficial, “Independent Summary for Policymakers” (ISPM) of the IPCC Fourth Assessment report has been delivered by the Fraser Institute. It’s a long, imposing-looking document, resembling, come to think of it, the formatting of the real Summary for Policymakers (SPM) document that was released on Friday after final negotiations of the IPCC in Paris last week. The Fraser Institute has assembled an awesome team of 10 authors, including such RC favorites as tilter-against-windmills-and-hockey-sticks Ross McKitrick, and other luminaries such as William Kininmonth, MSc, M.Admin — whose most recent paper is “Don’t be Gored into Going Along” in the Oct-Nov issue of Power Engineer. To be fair, he did publish a paper on weather forecasting, back in 1973. According to the press release, the London kickoff event will be graced by the presence of “noted environmentalist” David Bellamy. It’s true he’s “noted,” but what he’s noted for is his blatant fabrication of numbers purporting to show that the world’s glaciers are advancing rather retreating, as reported here.

[Read more…] about Fraser Institute fires off a damp squib

The IPCC Fourth Assessment SPM Le Quatrième Rapport d’Evaluation du GIEC – Résumé à l’intention des décideursA Quarta Avaliação do IPCC – Sumário para Tomadores de DeciçãoUluslararası Iklim Değişikliği Görevgücü’nün 4. Değerlendirme Raporunun Politika Belirliyicileri Icin ÖzetiEl resumen para responsables de políticas del cuarto informe de evaluación del IPCC

by

We’ve had a policy of (mostly) not commenting on the various drafts, misquotes and mistaken readings of the Fourth Assessment report (“AR4” to those in the acronym loop) of the IPCC. Now that the summary for policy makers (or “SPM”) has actually been published though, we can discuss the substance of the report without having to worry that the details will change. This post will only be our first cut at talking about the whole report. We plan on going chapter by chapter, hopefully explaining the key issues and the remaining key uncertainties over the next few months. This report will be referenced repeatedly over the next few years, and so we can take the time to do a reasonable job explaining what’s in it and why.

Nous avons choisi (la plupart du temps) de ne pas commenter les diverses ébauches, citations incorrectes et erreurs de lecture du Quatrième Rapport d’Evaluation (« AR4 » pour les amateurs d’acronymes anglais ou « QRE » en français – version officieuse en français ici (fichier .doc)) du GIEC. Maintenant que le résumé à l’intention des décideurs (ou le « SPM ») a été publié, nous pouvons discuter le contenu du rapport sans crainte de changements des détails. Cet article sera notre première discussion du rapport entier. Nous avons l’intention de l’analyser chapitre par chapitre, en espérant expliquer les questions clefs et les principales incertitudes restantes au cours des mois à venir. Ce rapport sera largement cité au cours des années à venir, et nous pouvons prendre ainsi le temps d’expliquer ce qui est dans ce rapport et quelles en sont les raisons.
[Read more…] about The IPCC Fourth Assessment SPM Le Quatrième Rapport d’Evaluation du GIEC – Résumé à l’intention des décideursA Quarta Avaliação do IPCC – Sumário para Tomadores de DeciçãoUluslararası Iklim Değişikliği Görevgücü’nün 4. Değerlendirme Raporunun Politika Belirliyicileri Icin ÖzetiEl resumen para responsables de políticas del cuarto informe de evaluación del IPCC

Quick pre-SPM round-up

by

Tomorrow is the big day for all IPCC-watchers (and we’ll comment then) but in the meantime here are a few interesting tidbits floating around today.

First off, there are some curious patterns in the whitehouse.gov search engine. It turns out that it has been blocked from returning most results if the search phrase includes “global warming” – even if it’s from the President himself. For instance, searching for “issue of global” gives as top result the President’s Rose Garden speech in June 2001 on Global Climate Change, but searching for “issue of global warming” (which of course is the full phrase used) returns nothing. Hmmm…..

Secondly, Bill Nye (‘the underprepared science guy’) had a rather rough time of it up against Richard Lindzen on Larry King last night – an episode notable only for the regression back to the ‘false balance’ notion that most of the media has been moving away from (sigh…). However, tucked away at the end was a rather confused section, where it appears that Lindzen bet Nye that ice cores don’t have a resolution better than 2000 years. Now this is an odd claim, and an odder thing to bet on, since Greenland cores (GRIP, GISP2) and Antarctic cores (EPICA DML) have sub-annual resolution in many cases for the isotope (temperature) records, and at least decadal resolution (Law Dome, Siple Dome) for the greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4). It’s true that the very longest records (Vostok and Dome-C) have coarser resolution, but surely Lindzen doesn’t think they are the only ones that exist? So, to make up for Nye’s performance, he should at least get a quality bottle of scotch. Bill, let us know if Lindzen pays up!

Finally, there is an excellent article on the sausage making going on in Paris… more on that tomorrow.

House and Senate committee hearings

by

There are two hearings today from the new congress that are of relevance for RealClimate readers:

The House Oversight Committee is having hearings on the possible suppression of climate change science by the administration (streaming from here). Witnesses include Drew Shindell (NASA GISS), Roger Pielke Jr. and R. Piltz. Update: Full hearing video available at C-SPAN.

The Senate EPW Committee is having an open forum for senators to discuss climate change legislation (streaming from here).

Stern Science La science de SternA ciência de Stern

by

Halldór Björnsson, William Connolley and Gavin Schmidt

Late last year, the UK Treasury’s Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change was released to rapturous reception from all sides of the UK political spectrum (i.e. left and right). Since then it has been subject to significant criticism and debate (for a good listing see Rabbett Run). Much of that discussion has revolved around the economic (and ethical) issues associated with ‘discounting’ (how you weight welfare in the future against welfare today) – particularly Nordhaus’s review. We are not qualified to address those issues, and so have not previously commented.

However, as exemplified by interviews on a recent Radio 4 program (including with our own William Connolley), some questions have involved the science that underlies the economics. We will try and address those.
Halldór Björnsson, William Connolley and Gavin Schmidt (traduit par Etienne Pesnelle)

A la fin de l’an dernier, le Trésor britannique a publié le rapport Stern sur les conséquences économiques du changement climatique, qui a été reçu avec enthousiasme par l’ensemble de la classe politique du Royaume-Uni, c’est à dire la gauche et la droite Depuis, il a fait l’objet de nombreux débats et critiques (voir la liste qu’a établie Rabbett Run). L’essentiel de la discussion a tourné autour des problèmes économiques (et éthiques) associés à “l’actualisation” (c’est-à-dire comment mesurer le bien-être futur à l’aune du bien-être actuel), ce dont traite notamment Nordhaus . Nous ne sommes pas qualifiés pour discuter de ces points, aussi ne les avons-nous pas commentés précédemment.

Toutefois, comme l’illustrent les interviews données lors d’une émission récente de Radio 4 (dont une avec notre William Connolley), certaines questions ont concerné la science qui sous-tend les calculs économiques. Nous allons essayer de les aborder.
Halldór Björnsson, William Connolley e Gavin Schmidt (traduzido por F. M. Ramos e I. B. T. Lima)

No fim do ano passado, o Tesouro britânico publicou o Relatório Stern sobre as conseqüências econômicas das mudanças climáticas, que foi recebido com entusiasmo pelo conjunto da classe política do Reino Unido, isto é a esquerda e a direita. Depois, ele foi objeto de inúmeros debates e críticas (ver a lista que preparou Rabbett Run). O essencial da discussão realizou-se em torno dos problemas econômicos (e éticos) associados à “atualização” (isto é, como medir o bem-estar futuro em comparação ao bem-estar atual) – particularmente o Relatório Nordhaus. Nós não estamos qualificados para comentar estes assuntos, assim como não comentamos no passado.

No entanto, como ilustram as entrevistas concedidas durante um recente programa de Radio
4 (das quais uma com William Connolley), certas questões diziam respeito à ciência que sustenta os cálculos econômicos. Vamos tentar abordá-las a seguir. Ao contrário de um relatório mais antigo da Câmara dos Lordes, Stern não perde tempo tentando trapacear, e essencialmente busca a ciência no relatório do IPCC, com algumas atualizações de trabalhos mais recentes. A maior parte da ciência está resumida no capítulo um, e um leitor casual familiarizado com o relatório IPCC encontrará poucas surpresas em seções que incluem afirmações como “Uma massa esmagadora de evidências científicas indica que o clima da Terra está mudando rapidamente, predominantemente pelo efeito do crescimento dos gases de efeito estufa causado pelas atividades humanas” etc. Entretanto, as possibilidades científicas em Stern são ponderadas de maneira levemente diferente que nos relatórios do IPCC uma vez que, como ele afirma, “os tomadores de decisão devem levar em conta os riscos extremos, além das previsões médias, por que seria muito grave se estes riscos viessem a se materializar” (Stern reply to Byatt et al).

Há três componentes científicas no relatório Stern: a sensibilidade climática, as emissões futuras dos gases de efeito estufa, e os impactos de uma dada mudança, expressas na forma de anomalia de temperatura global por razões de comodidade.

A sensibilidade climática (já discutida aqui anteriormente) foi considerada como provavelmente estando no intervalo de 1.5 a 4.5 C do IPCC TAR, e no intervalo de 2 a 5 C nos modelos utilizados no relatório Stern. No entanto, a probabilidade de valores maiores tem um papel importante no relatório. Especificamente, Meinshausen* (2006) [estabelece] que há “entre 2% a 20% de probabilidade que o aquecimento possa ser maior que 5 C”. Isto é verdade, mas o relatório esquece de mencionar que outros novos estudos (Annan and Hargreaves; Hegerl et al) sugerem que é insignificante a probabilidade que a sensibilidade climática seja superior a 5 C.

A incerteza sobre o aquecimento futuro não se reduz à incerteza sobre a sensibilidade, mas depende também daquela relacionada aos níveis futuros dos gases de efeito estufa (GEE). Existe uma ampla gama de cenários e de estimativas sobre níveis futuros de GEE que são utilizados nos relatórios do IPCC. O cenário utilizado pelo Relatório Stern é o A2, mas neste cenário, os níveis de GEE na segunda metade do século XXI são superiores àqueles do cenário A1b, por exemplo. A questão não é se o cenário A2 é menos sólido que o A1, mas simplesmente que o Relatório Stern escolheu trabalhar com um dos cenários de “fortes emissões”. Além disso, o relatório reconhece também a grande incerteza (mas não claramente quantificável) de feedbacks positivos nas emissões de CO2 e CH4 de origem natural.

Com relação aos impactos das mudanças climáticas, a estória é semelhante: a maior parte dos impactos são declarados mas sua probabilidade de ocorrência é sujeita à debate. Por exemplo: o enfraquecimento da corrente termohalina sob 1 grau de aquecimento, risco de colapso em 3 graus, risco de derretimento irreversível da calota de gelo da Groenlândia para um aquecimento de 2 graus, a elevação dos mares de 5 a 12 metros durante muitos séculos, – estas eventualidades são questionáveis, e deveriam ser consideradas como “o cenário adverso” dentre os possíveis impactos.

Em conclusão: Stern de um modo geral utiliza bem a ciência do clima, mas desvia-se para o lado das estimativas mais impactantes e as utiliza em seu sumário. Este viés altista faz com que o relatório seja vulnerável a acusações de “alarmismo”. O relatório é justo em apontar que os danos e seus custos crescem de maneira desproporcional com o aumento da mudança de temperatura e portanto, dada esta assimetria, os tomadores de decisão têm razão de levá-los em conta. Entretanto, parece que a maior crítica deste relatório será atribuída (em outros foros) à parte econômica.

NB: De modo previsível, alguns dos “céticos” habituais atacaram igualmente a ciência do relatório Stern. No entanto, uma indicação de sua falta fundamental de seriedade é que, quando há realmente importantes incertezas (por exemplo, a probabilidade de que a sensibilidade seja superior àquela geralmente estimada), eles as ignoram para fazer as mesmas repetitivas, desinteressantes e incorretas afirmações que sempre fazem.

*Meinshausen, M. (2006): ‘What does a 2C target mean for greenhouse gas concentrations? A brief analysis based on multi-gas emission pathways and several climate sensitivity uncertainty estimates’ (“O que significa um alvo de +2°C em termos de concentração de gás de efeito estufa? Uma rápida análise fundamentada em caminhos de emissão multi-gás e várias estimativas de incerteza da sensibilidade climática”), Avoiding dangerous climate change (Evitando uma perigosa mudança climática), in H.J. Schellnhuber et al. (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 265 a 280.
[Read more…] about Stern Science La science de SternA ciência de Stern

When the mites go up…

by

Guest Commentary from Andy Baker, U. of Birmingham

It doesn’t seem obvious really. Going underground into caves, removing stalagmites and analysing their isotopic composition isn’t the first thing you would do to look for past climate information. But for nearly 40 years, there has been an active, and growing research community that investigates the climate records preserved in these archives. Stalagmites have recently received high profile use in climate reconstructions, for example records from China and Norway have featured in Moberg’s last millennium temperature reconstruction; in a northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction of the last 500 years and even been debated here on RealClimate. So it seems timely to review why on (or even under) earth should research go underground to look at surface climate.

[Read more…] about When the mites go up…

Calling All Science Teachers

by

“An Inconvenient Truth,” the Davis Guggenheim documentary on global warming starring Al Gore’s presentation on the subject, provides an accurate, engaging, accessible, thought-provoking and (at times) even humorous introduction to one of the most important scientific issues of our time ( see our review of the movie). In some countries, viewing “An Inconvenient Truth” has actually become a required part of the science curriculum, and with good justification, we think. Given that the DVD is currently selling for $19.99 through Amazon.com, you’d think that the National Science Teachers’ Association ( NSTA) would jump at the chance to quickly get 50,000 free copies quickly into the hands of their members. Yet, when Laurie David, one of the producers of the film, made this offer to NSTA last November, it was summarily turned down on the grounds that the NSTA has a 2001 policy against “product endorsement” (as if Laurie David were trying to shop some new deodorant to high school science teachers). What in the world is going on here?

Before continuing with the history of NSTA’s bizarre decision, let us provide you with the most important information: Up to 50,000 US science teachers can receive a free copy of the DVD by filling out a simple request form here . The deadline for requesting your copy is January 18, so if you want a copy, take a few minutes to put in your request right away.
[Read more…] about Calling All Science Teachers

Arctic Sea Ice decline in the 21st CenturyDéclin de la banquise de l’Arctique au 21ème siècle

by

Guest Commentary by Cecilia Bitz, University of Washington

Last month a paper I co-authored received considerable media attention. Headlines read “Experts warn North Pole will be ‘ice free’ by 2040”, “The Big Melt: Loss of Sea Ice Snowballs“, and “Arctic Clear for Summer Sailing by 2040: Models Predict Rapid Decline of Sea Ice”. The story also reached NPR, BBC, CBC, the Discovery channel, and Fox News, among others. Dr. Marika Holland, the first author of the paper, was inundated with media attention. About a dozen journalists contacted me too. I was impressed by the questions they posed — questions that probably reflect what the public most wants to know. However, after giving lengthy interviews, I would read the resulting article and see my explanations boiled down to a few lines. In this essay, I’d like to explain the science in the paper and give my answers to the most often asked questions.
Cécilia Bitz, Université de Washington (traduit par Valérie Masson-Delmotte)

Ce mois-ci, un article dont j’étais co-auteur a attiré considérablement l’attention des médias. Les unes des journaux titraient : “Les experts tirent la sonnette d’alarme : le Pôle Nord libre de glace d’ici à 2040”; ““Fonte massive : perte de banquise en boule de neige”; et “L’Arctique dégagée pour la navigation d’été d’ici 2040 : les modèles prévoient un déclin rapide de la banquise”. Cette histoire a aussi gagné les chaînes de télévision : NPR, BBC, CBC, Discovery Channel et Fox News, parmi d’autres. Le Dr Marika Holland, premier auteur de cet article, a été submergée par les sollicitations médiatiques. Parmi les douzaines de journalistes qui m’ont également contactée, j’ai été impressionnée par les questions qui m’ont été posées – des questions qui reflètent probablement ce que le grand public veut savoir en priorité. Cependant, après avoir donné de longues interviews, je vois souvent mes explications réduites à quelques lignes dans les articles… Dans cet essai, je voudrais expliquer les résultats scientifiques de notre publication et mes réponses aux questions les plus fréquentes.

(suite…)

[Read more…] about Arctic Sea Ice decline in the 21st CenturyDéclin de la banquise de l’Arctique au 21ème siècle

Consensus as the New Heresy

by

Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, David Archer, Stefan Rahmstorf, William Connolley, and Raymond Bradley

Andy Revkin, who’s one of the best journalists on the climate beat, wrote a curious piece in the NY Times discussing the ‘middle stance’ of the climate debate. It’s nice to see news pieces on climate that aren’t breathless accounts of a new breakthough and that take the time to point out that the vast majority of relevant scientists take climate change extremely seriously. To that extent, the message of this piece was a welcome one. The curious part, however, was the thread running through the piece that this middle ground is only now emerging, and even curiouser, that this middle ground can be characterized as representing some sort of ‘heresy’.

Heresy, is commonly defined as ‘an opinion or doctrine at variance with the official or orthodox position’. So where does this idea come from, and why is it now ’emerging’?
[Read more…] about Consensus as the New Heresy